2017 (8) TMI 1491 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 1371 days - non-removal of office objections - Held that - The cause as set out and the explanation as forwarded today, on affidavit and belatedly, reflects total negligence and callousness of the Revenue officials. Their attitude shows that they are not at all vigilant and interested in pursuing the cases filed by the Department involving a tax effect of crores of rupees. They expect the Court to be lenient and liberal and pardon them every time. It is this approach of the Revenue officials which is not only strongly deprecated in the earlier order but this Court has refused to uphold it after it was noticed that this is the position in almost every matter. This is no explanation for the delay of 1371 days and if for all these years the Revenue officials have not noticed the lodging, filing or pendency of an appeal, a conditional order of the Registry, then, it must set its own house in order by sacking and removing the delinquent and negligent officials or penalising them otherwise so as to sub-serve larger public interest. If they are found to be handing-love with the assessee and adopt such tactics deliberately, then, we do not think that the Court is responsible for the same. Registrar (O.S.) has been drawing up a list and notifying the appeals regularly and intimating the parties and their Advocates through the High Court website that they must attend to these cases or else all consequences including dismissal without adjudication on merit, will follow. If this is a known fact to all practising Advocates, including the Revenue s Advocates, then, we do not think that any special treatment can be claimed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in moving the notice of motion to set aside an order passed by the Registrar/Prothonotary & Senior Master.
2. Justification for condoning the delay.
3. Compliance with procedural rules for filing Income Tax Appeals by the Revenue/Department of Income Tax.
4. Responsibility of the Revenue officials in pursuing legal cases in court.
5. Consequences of negligence and callousness of Revenue officials on the outcome of appeals.
6. Court's stance on condoning serious lapses in the functioning of Revenue officials.
7. Dismissal of the notice of motion due to the reasons assigned in similar matters.

Analysis:

1. The judgment deals with a notice of motion seeking to quash an order passed by the Registrar/Prothonotary & Senior Master on 13-6-2013, which was moved belatedly on 16-3-2017, raising concerns about the delay in taking action.

2. The applicant/appellant cited reasons for the delay, stating that they were unaware of the rejection order and the office objections in the appeal drafted by a Standing Counsel, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without adjudication on merits. The delay of 1371 days was requested to be condoned in the interest of justice.

3. The court emphasized the need for the Revenue/Department of Income Tax to comply with procedural rules for filing appeals, highlighting that the Revenue is not a special litigant and must ensure timely compliance with the Bombay High Court Rules. The court noted a trend of non-compliance and negligence by Revenue officials in following up on legal cases.

4. It was observed that Revenue officials often delegate responsibilities to junior staff or Advocates without proper oversight, leading to serious lapses in legal matters. The court criticized the negligent attitude of Revenue officials, who expect leniency from the court despite their lack of vigilance in pursuing cases involving significant tax implications.

5. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the explanations provided by Revenue officials for the delay, noting that such negligence cannot be justified, especially when dealing with appeals that have a substantial impact on revenue collection. The court highlighted the need for the Revenue to take necessary actions to rectify the situation and ensure accountability among its officials.

6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the notice of motion, citing similar refusals in other matters where requests for condonation of delays were not entertained. The decision to dismiss the motion was based on the court's stance against condoning lapses in the functioning of Revenue officials and the need for strict adherence to procedural requirements.